Child custody: child sexual abuse.
Summary
Existing law requires the court to refrain from making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California. For purposes of this provision, immediate harm to the child includes, but is not limited to, having a parent who has committed acts of domestic violence, or the sexual abuse of the child, where the court determines that the acts of domestic violence or of sexual abuse are of recent origin or are a part of a demonstrated and continuing pattern of those respective acts. This bill would revise that provision to prohibit the court from making, rather than refrain from making, that order. The bill would also prohibit, unless there is a showing of immediate danger to the health and safety of the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, a court from granting a request to modify a child custody order on an ex parte basis if there is a finding that there has been sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, if the court determines that the act of sexual abuse or domestic violence is of recent origin, or part of a demonstrated and continuing or escalating pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, and if the request for modification of the custody order is made by a person who is alleged to have perpetrated a recent act or a pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child and it is alleged that the person is seeking the modification in order to gain greater access to the child. Under those circumstances, a hearing regarding modification of the custody order would be conducted in open court. The bill would make a related change. The bill would also define "recent origin," for purposes of these provisions, to apply to acts occurring within the previous 5 years.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2009
Assembly Passage
Jun 2009
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 23, 2009
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 2, 2009
How they voted
69–0
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 70
Jun 2, 2009
D
Democratic43
97% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican26
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
15
Key actions
5
Committee
7
Amendments
1
Jul 8, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jul 6, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 18, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 2, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (69-0-1)
assembly
Mar 31, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 31).
lower
Mar 24, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 23, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 9, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 24, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jim Nielsen
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 375
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 375. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline